The recent decision in Serafine v. Crump by the Supreme Court of Texas primarily revolves around the interpretation of what constitutes “litigation” under Texas law, particularly in the context of determining whether someone is a “vexatious litigant.” This case settled a growing inconsistency within some courts of appeals.
Background
Mary Louise Serafine, a former attorney proceeding pro se, challenged her designation as a vexatious litigant, which restricts her ability to file lawsuits without permission from a judge. While the exact number of lawsuits and appeals she filed is not always consistently reported, some sources indicate that Serafine was involved in over 30 legal actions, including actions against state court judges and numerous appeals.
Texas Law on Vexatious Litigants
To be found a vexatious litigant under Texas law, (1) the defendant must show there is no reasonable probability the plaintiff will prevail in the current litigation, and (2) among other options, the plaintiff must have in the past seven years commenced, prosecuted, or maintained at least five litigations as a pro se litigant other than in a small claims court that have been finally determined adversely to the plaintiff. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.054(1)(A).
Texas Supreme Court Clarifies Litigation Counting
The key issue in this procedural matter was whether appeals and other proceedings related to a single civil case should be counted as separate “litigations” for the purposes of this designation. The court ruled that an appeal or a petition for review does not commence a new civil action but is rather a continuation of the original action. This ruling clarifies how litigations should be counted under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which impacts how easily someone can be labeled a vexatious litigant—a designation that significantly limits a person’s ability to pursue legal claims.
Implications for Texas Vexatious Litigant Laws
This decision has broad implications for how vexatious litigant laws are applied in Texas, potentially making it harder for individuals to be restricted under this label by ensuring that multiple appeals in a single case are not unfairly counted against them as separate actions.
